Re: Problems with floating point and modulus

Tasperian Jigs wrote:
Hi,

I try to get a 'next value' (depending on 'nextNumber') for a double with this method.

public static double nextNearest(double value, double nextNumber)
{
final double remainder = value % nextNumber;
return value - remainder + (remainder > 0 ? nextNumber : 0);
}

But the 'remainder' variable does not get the exact remainder after the modulus. Is there another way to realise this method so the return result is the exact double that i want? I'm aware of floating point inaccuracies, that's why I ask this question ..

Thanks,

J

Can you explain a bit more of the context and requirements?

There are generally a couple of ways of dealing with rounding error when
you need to do tests:

1. Use a small fudge factor, traditionally called "epsilon". To apply
this, you need to find a value for epsilon that is smaller than any
non-zero number you would get if you were doing exact real arithmetic,
but larger than the rounding error.

Something around 1e-12 times the larger input value might work.

Your test would become remainder>epsilon rather than remainder>0.

2. Do the controlling stuff in some form of exact arithmetic, such as
scaled integer. If all interesting numbers are representable as decimal
fractions with a bounded number of digits, consider BigDecimal.

Patricia
.

Relevant Pages

  • Problems with floating point and modulus
    ... double nextNumber) ... But the 'remainder' variable does not get the exact remainder after the ... I'm aware of floating point inaccuracies, ...
    (comp.lang.java.programmer)
  • RE: TIME CALCULATING MACRO
    ... rounded figures or exact actual months. ... Take the remainder and divide by 30 for months. ... > in Year and Months and Days, as the time difference between two fields ...
    (microsoft.public.access.macros)
  • Re: We are, a mass extinction event.
    ... Your head starts to hurt around here somewhere but I will go a little ... If G has a remainder as does c and e, but the results are exact, it is ... because you have discovered the correct exact proportional relationship ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading